San Marcos free press. [volume] (San Marcos, Tex.) 1877-1892, 1887-08-04

MIR. McGehee appears TO be rathe
roticent here, as 10 tho precise fact
Of the case, 80 We will help him on
little by stating that tho "remova
OF q state official referred TO by hin
was that OF DR.. Denton, formerly o
San Marcos, from the Superintend
ency OF the Lunatic Asylum, and the
committee" referred TO was one ap
pointed by the Legislature to investi
gate the affairs OF that institution
Now we will state that our editoria
referred TO appeared in the FREl
Press Of April IA, under tho caption
1.-THE State Lunatic Asylum" Il
consisted of only half q column
starting out with mere mention o.
said removal, and making some com
ments on the &c parte action Of said
committee. Gov. Ross name is not
mentioned in the article, nor is there
one word of abuse of him or his ad
ministration. We do not ask any
body to take our assertion, but refer
them TO the paper itself as tho best
evidence. We will further state that
when we wrote said article We had
not noticed that Mr.. McGehee was
on that Communicable was not in all
our thoughts; but if we had known
1t we should not have dreamed that
he was hostile to DIR. Denton, our
former townsman, but that he felt, as
we did, like standing by him unless
found faithless to his trust. We had
never been intimate with DR.. Denton,
were under no special obligations to
him, but had known him as an honor
able and truthful man, and had per-
sonal knowledge that he had exerted
himself to excel in his Office and had
made signal improvement in the Asy-
lum and its management. We will
add, that time has already indicated
him. AS stated in our article, his
successor, DIR. Dorset, had hardly
taken his position before he signal,
lied himself by discharging as cured
one of the most violent and danger
GUS of the inmates and who OF
course he had very soon to take back.
The inelliciency of the new superin
tendent has become more and more
manifest every day since, and is well
known at Adstin. Gov Ross himself
cannot be ignorant that he made q
great mistake as to this whole matter.
This was the subject of the editorial,
in which neither Gov. Ross nor Mr..
McGehee were mentioned, that so
awoke the ire of the latter as to cause
his sudden determination to rule us
out from getting that item of state
advertising. Instead of laying be-
fore our readers his versio of the
case, as he knew he would have the
privilege of doing, he seeks to pun
ish us pecuniarily, and then boasts
on the streets of his remarkable
achievement. We appeal to the pub
lie if we had not perfect right, as
the editor Of q newspaper, to COM
ment on q public matter of this sort,
or if Mr.. McGehee, as representa-
tive of the people, had any just cause
to take the course he did simply for
the expression of our opinion on the
subject.
We follow him a little further to
where he says:
AT that time l did not know that
Mr.. Hull was an anti-prohibitionist.
Upon which we have simply to re-
mark that if he did not know this he
was the only man, woman OF child in
this community who had any doubt
on the subject. Again we quote:
The charge by Julian that this
work was given Mr.. Hull by the gov
ernor, or secretary of state, or myself
ON account of his views on prohibit
tion is absolutely FALSE and mana
featured by the foul brain and given
TO the public by the lying pen Of L.
II. Julian.
In reply we will state we never
nade any such charge. Here is
What we said (FREE PEEss July y:
We will not assert that the over
300 secured to the Cresset by the
influence of Mr.. Representative Nc
1ehee for publishing the constitu-
ional amendments was intended to
id in the anti-prohibition cause,
hough we can see no other so plaus-
BILE "a reason for his interference
.gainst the FREE Press.
We did not assert what he says WE
lid, and as will be seen, made no re-
erence at all to the governor or sec
etary Of state. One thing, however,
must be quite clear to all who read
lis article, that our advocacy of pro
libition has not increased Mr.. Nc
iehees love for us, to say the least